dynamic scaling system:this mean you start the fight with 5 player 2000 join in the game automaticly send adds for the required amount of player there,those 2000 player decide to do a prank and leave all at the same time the game will automaticly scale the fight back down so that those 5 player will only have the amount of foe they can manage.this is a great idea!
At this point I'm tired of of promises from developers. I thought Champions Online would be great because they worked on City of Heroes, and I thought APB would super awesome and would be the game that people would go crazy for, but they are both big disappointments.
And Now I find myself thinking "well, GW2 will be good because they know what they are doing" But I thought the same exact thing with Champions Online. So I'm just going wait and not bother getting excited over this game. Because now all I have to hope for is GW2, Blade and Soul, and The secret world (which looks like it'll be another disappointment.)
I think GW2 might have the best shot because its not trying to be like an action game.
Has anyone else noticed that when devs try to make mmo games feel like action games (like fallen earth and APB) the combat feels rough and sort of empty...hard to explain. Its like when I shoot someone in GTA4 I 'm shooting them, but in APB it feels like theres some calulations going on so combat feels stupid, like theres no skill involved, just luck.
Since Guild wars 2 isnt trying to do this, I think it has a better shot than most games.
Sounds good on paper, but implementation is the hard part. What if those drudges take over the entire zone, and it instantly becomes a death trap even to set foot into it? Hehehe..... That should be possible, but it probably won't, and I get the feeling these "invisible walls" of content will be fairly obvious: If I help X survive, Y will always happen, if I don't, Z will always happen.
To my logic oriented mind, these will ruin the sense of "dynamic", and replace it with "finite state machine".
I agree to a large extent with what you're saying. The real key to MMO's, for me is to make divergent shards. If Arenanet does what they say they're going to do, logging into one server may be a totally different experience than logging into another. If they do that, they're going to be filthy rich.
Many of the things they're proposing, when talking about Drudge armies conquering territories, is really quite similar to AI in a RTS, which we know can be done pretty well. We also know that unit based AI can be done pretty well. So it would be possible to combine the two, with nothing more than existent AI functionality. A lot of work, but possible.
Everquest actually had content similar to what was proposed with their releasing the Sleeper dragon, (what 9 years ago?) which permantly changed the content of a couple of zones. It was just one iteration though.
We'll see. It can be done. It's going to require a lot of people downloading a lot of content (have to leave your PC connected when you go to work) and I am not sure if it's cost effective, but nothing they propose is actually outside of available technology.
I could be skeptical. But I'd rather be very, very hopeful. This functionality is what I was hoping for from Heroes of Telara.
We've been flirting with the technology to accomplish this for years, but no one has pushed out a product that kept the complex feature set to support this. It's usually the small, idealistic indie developers who want to make this kind of game, not an established company. You quickly learn how difficult and complex this stuff is, and it's easier to back away and make a WoW clone.
I sure hope the GW2 team pulls off most of this, and has a solid release, because that will show the rest of the industry that dynamic content is doable. I never want to follow a stupid exclamation point again.
I very much like the fact that they are already testing this stuff in house - it's not just a 'plan' on paper.
I can't remember how long they've been working on GW2 but it's been a long time and they've been very careful about releasing information. After seeing this I can understand why - you don't even want to mention the possibility of player actions meaning something unless they really will.
Now I'm going to go nuts waiting for the next installment - the RPG part.
big talk from the makers of fail'd wars. we've heard this all before, with every mmo that comes out. Since they are never held accountable for the big promises made pre-release, there's no reason to trust a word that devs and marketers say about an mmo.
big talk from the makers of fail'd wars. we've heard this all before, with every mmo that comes out. Since they are never held accountable for the big promises made pre-release, there's no reason to trust a word that devs and marketers say about an mmo.
Pretty sure GW1 sold a few million copies. Not to say that has anything to do with steady players, but that is no where near a failure in most peoples eyes. Just because you did not like it means it is a failure? That is sound logic.
Man, I'm starting to really, really LOVE these guys!
If they can manage to pull off all the things they're stating, then forget 'old school', 'themepark', or 'sandbox', those are all old classifications: we're talking about next-gen MMO here in the evolution of MMO's
ANet is one of a very few companies that can talk business and put their money where their mouths are
... and Terikan, you're talking out of your ass, I can smell it in your breath.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I'm just trying to wrap my head around the actual nuts and bolts of how this will actually play out on a day to day basis.
Here are my thoughts -
They create chains of quests, starting with a simple "defend my home from Ogres" and branching out depending on the outcome.
If multiple players go to that NPC and take the quest at the same time, it's like a public quest in WAR that you are doing the same thing but not together, but it doesn't reset after the quest like in WAR instead you go onto the next step (which again is a branching quest tree determined by the outcome.)
If no one continues the branch, if the party/player/raid whatever stops mid-chain the encounter will just sit there for a while, and after x amount of time will load up a different set of quest branches that will make the Ogre's you drove back start charging forward again etc.
But it is impossible for them to create infinite loops and impossible to create an un-ending number of quest branches, so they'll have to repeat at some point.
So in practice it sounds like they are just linking public quests, making them scale to the number of players participating (even down to a single player) and setting win/lose conditions to continue the branching.
But there are limits, and it will reset and be more like a pendulum moving between branches not an infinite spiral.
I really hope they pull this off, looking forward to GW2.
"If all you can say is... "It's awful, it's not innovative, it's ugly, it's blah.." Then you're an unimaginative and unpolished excuse for human life" -eburn
It sure does sound great, but I'm extremely skeptical on how this will actually translate to being a "Dynamic" event. It sounds remarkably similar to what WAR created, but without personal questing. They plan on scaling missions and creating chain events... but on what scale will we be looking at these things?
What will the loop be? How often will a dragon be spawning? How often will someone be taking that orb from the ocean? Will the areas be instanced? Will one instance have a dragon in the area and another have ogres?
I'm interested to see how it works, I don't think this is so much progressive as it is just different. I'll be glad to try it though.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around the actual nuts and bolts of how this will actually play out on a day to day basis.
Here are my thoughts -
They create chains of quests, starting with a simple "defend my home from Ogres" and branching out depending on the outcome.
If multiple players go to that NPC and take the quest at the same time, it's like a public quest in WAR that you are doing the same thing but not together, but it doesn't reset after the quest like in WAR instead you go onto the next step (which again is a branching quest tree determined by the outcome.)
If no one continues the branch, if the party/player/raid whatever stops mid-chain the encounter will just sit there for a while, and after x amount of time will load up a different set of quest branches that will make the Ogre's you drove back start charging forward again etc.
But it is impossible for them to create infinite loops and impossible to create an un-ending number of quest branches, so they'll have to repeat at some point.
So in practice it sounds like they are just linking public quests, making them scale to the number of players participating (even down to a single player) and setting win/lose conditions to continue the branching.
But there are limits, and it will reset and be more like a pendulum moving between branches not an infinite spiral.
Thoughts? Anyone else?
Yes this is what I thought, though I explained it ... differently... I guess.
If they completely remove personal questing and make everything scalable from solo to group (public) quests I just worry it'll be like WAR but all you do is hop from PQ to PQ, and depending on if you "win" or "lose" a PQ it'll either send you to the next one or to a different one.
And yeah with the exploration thing how often will those repeat?
I'll just have to see it in practice and play around with it... but I love the very idea of Public Quests and the more the better, completely eliminating personal (solo) quests and going 100% PQ? It's ballsy but if they do chain them and loop them in a way that feels organic and interesting I won't mind a little repetition, especially with the scaling mechanics and varying player participating altering the content each loop...
At least one thing that we know about ANet is that they've grown very careful about what the devs and CR say in interviews and on fansite forums. Very rarely will they say anything as specific as what we're seeing in the interviews and on the official site today without trusting in themselves that they'll accomplish whatever the topic is. This leads me to believe that they're very confident in this system they're describing and I'll trust that they'll make it work.
If they completely remove personal questing and make everything scalable from solo to group (public) quests I just worry it'll be like WAR but all you do is hop from PQ to PQ, and depending on if you "win" or "lose" a PQ it'll either send you to the next one or to a different one.
And yeah with the exploration thing how often will those repeat?
I'll just have to see it in practice and play around with it... but I love the very idea of Public Quests and the more the better, completely eliminating personal (solo) quests and going 100% PQ? It's ballsy but if they do chain them and loop them in a way that feels organic and interesting I won't mind a little repetition, especially with the scaling mechanics and varying player participating altering the content each loop...
How would this work with a regular level progression system? Perhaps with the way the old guild wars progression would work where you only have a low level cap and most of the content is still accessible and somewhat challenging at level cap. But if everything is PQ related how do they balance for levels at all? Would a level 15 or 20 in the area increase difficulty? Or would the Event only scale by the amount of players in the area and level wouldn't matter?
I'm just trying to wrap my head around the actual nuts and bolts of how this will actually play out on a day to day basis.
Here are my thoughts -
They create chains of quests, starting with a simple "defend my home from Ogres" and branching out depending on the outcome.
If multiple players go to that NPC and take the quest at the same time, it's like a public quest in WAR that you are doing the same thing but not together, but it doesn't reset after the quest like in WAR instead you go onto the next step (which again is a branching quest tree determined by the outcome.)
If no one continues the branch, if the party/player/raid whatever stops mid-chain the encounter will just sit there for a while, and after x amount of time will load up a different set of quest branches that will make the Ogre's you drove back start charging forward again etc.
But it is impossible for them to create infinite loops and impossible to create an un-ending number of quest branches, so they'll have to repeat at some point.
So in practice it sounds like they are just linking public quests, making them scale to the number of players participating (even down to a single player) and setting win/lose conditions to continue the branching.
But there are limits, and it will reset and be more like a pendulum moving between branches not an infinite spiral.
Thoughts? Anyone else?
Well, I don't know if it is how they will do it, but one way of doing it is implementing quest chains, where you have for example a main line from quest A to K: if the players are doing nothing, then the game will slowly progress towards point K, where it'll settle in sort of an end state. If players start fighting back along that main line, they could be able to push the main line back to the environment state of chain point A. Every stop along that quest main line will have the area in a different setup, at one end the village where you'd usually resupply has been raided and has to be conquered back, at the other end you have slain the tribe of orcs and chased them out of their village.
You could have several of such quest chains in an area, with some maybe only getting unlocked when the area is in a certain state (orc village is slain, suddenly bandits are making the area where orcs wandered around unsafe, while in the former orc village, orcs are pouring in again, but with very strong brethren)
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
If they completely remove personal questing and make everything scalable from solo to group (public) quests I just worry it'll be like WAR but all you do is hop from PQ to PQ, and depending on if you "win" or "lose" a PQ it'll either send you to the next one or to a different one.
And yeah with the exploration thing how often will those repeat?
I'll just have to see it in practice and play around with it... but I love the very idea of Public Quests and the more the better, completely eliminating personal (solo) quests and going 100% PQ? It's ballsy but if they do chain them and loop them in a way that feels organic and interesting I won't mind a little repetition, especially with the scaling mechanics and varying player participating altering the content each loop...
What they're describing doesn't sound like that. They've already said they're won't be "win or lose" in the example of the dredge marching they said they a different chain of events will trigger depending if you attack them early, in the middle, late, or not at all etc. It's reacting to what your doing not just if you win or lose. What they're describing isn't just multiple PQ linked to together. What you do and when you do things also affect things.
If they completely remove personal questing and make everything scalable from solo to group (public) quests I just worry it'll be like WAR but all you do is hop from PQ to PQ, and depending on if you "win" or "lose" a PQ it'll either send you to the next one or to a different one.
And yeah with the exploration thing how often will those repeat?
I'll just have to see it in practice and play around with it... but I love the very idea of Public Quests and the more the better, completely eliminating personal (solo) quests and going 100% PQ? It's ballsy but if they do chain them and loop them in a way that feels organic and interesting I won't mind a little repetition, especially with the scaling mechanics and varying player participating altering the content each loop...
I think this will be a lot more dynamic than War's PQ system. And a lot less predictable.
Comments
dynamic scaling system:this mean you start the fight with 5 player 2000 join in the game automaticly send adds for the required amount of player there,those 2000 player decide to do a prank and leave all at the same time the game will automaticly scale the fight back down so that those 5 player will only have the amount of foe they can manage.this is a great idea!
At this point I'm tired of of promises from developers. I thought Champions Online would be great because they worked on City of Heroes, and I thought APB would super awesome and would be the game that people would go crazy for, but they are both big disappointments.
And Now I find myself thinking "well, GW2 will be good because they know what they are doing" But I thought the same exact thing with Champions Online. So I'm just going wait and not bother getting excited over this game. Because now all I have to hope for is GW2, Blade and Soul, and The secret world (which looks like it'll be another disappointment.)
I think GW2 might have the best shot because its not trying to be like an action game.
Has anyone else noticed that when devs try to make mmo games feel like action games (like fallen earth and APB) the combat feels rough and sort of empty...hard to explain. Its like when I shoot someone in GTA4 I 'm shooting them, but in APB it feels like theres some calulations going on so combat feels stupid, like theres no skill involved, just luck.
Since Guild wars 2 isnt trying to do this, I think it has a better shot than most games.
I agree to a large extent with what you're saying. The real key to MMO's, for me is to make divergent shards. If Arenanet does what they say they're going to do, logging into one server may be a totally different experience than logging into another. If they do that, they're going to be filthy rich.
Many of the things they're proposing, when talking about Drudge armies conquering territories, is really quite similar to AI in a RTS, which we know can be done pretty well. We also know that unit based AI can be done pretty well. So it would be possible to combine the two, with nothing more than existent AI functionality. A lot of work, but possible.
Everquest actually had content similar to what was proposed with their releasing the Sleeper dragon, (what 9 years ago?) which permantly changed the content of a couple of zones. It was just one iteration though.
We'll see. It can be done. It's going to require a lot of people downloading a lot of content (have to leave your PC connected when you go to work) and I am not sure if it's cost effective, but nothing they propose is actually outside of available technology.
I could be skeptical. But I'd rather be very, very hopeful. This functionality is what I was hoping for from Heroes of Telara.
We've been flirting with the technology to accomplish this for years, but no one has pushed out a product that kept the complex feature set to support this. It's usually the small, idealistic indie developers who want to make this kind of game, not an established company. You quickly learn how difficult and complex this stuff is, and it's easier to back away and make a WoW clone.
I sure hope the GW2 team pulls off most of this, and has a solid release, because that will show the rest of the industry that dynamic content is doable. I never want to follow a stupid exclamation point again.
I very much like the fact that they are already testing this stuff in house - it's not just a 'plan' on paper.
I can't remember how long they've been working on GW2 but it's been a long time and they've been very careful about releasing information. After seeing this I can understand why - you don't even want to mention the possibility of player actions meaning something unless they really will.
Now I'm going to go nuts waiting for the next installment - the RPG part.
Kudos to Arena Net for doing something different!
Good luck A-Net, you deserve it and you'll get my Euros when you pull this off! Ammagad I've never been so hyped about a game before ... It's insane!
Eaglix
We will see. Sounds great, but is it possible?
big talk from the makers of fail'd wars. we've heard this all before, with every mmo that comes out. Since they are never held accountable for the big promises made pre-release, there's no reason to trust a word that devs and marketers say about an mmo.
Pretty sure GW1 sold a few million copies. Not to say that has anything to do with steady players, but that is no where near a failure in most peoples eyes. Just because you did not like it means it is a failure? That is sound logic.
Promises Promises i say.
Of course we would love all this.
Will they be able to keep things interesting from starter / early areas? Or will they be ghost towns one month after launch?
Man, I'm starting to really, really LOVE these guys!
If they can manage to pull off all the things they're stating, then forget 'old school', 'themepark', or 'sandbox', those are all old classifications: we're talking about next-gen MMO here in the evolution of MMO's
ANet is one of a very few companies that can talk business and put their money where their mouths are
... and Terikan, you're talking out of your ass, I can smell it in your breath.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
This sounds like the greatest game of all time. I'll preorder as soon as an official release date is announced.
Thinking the same thing, it's just, I'll rather be hopeful and disappointed than just another cynic.
I can tell you one thing though, won't be buying it before I can try it first, regardless of the business model.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around the actual nuts and bolts of how this will actually play out on a day to day basis.
Here are my thoughts -
They create chains of quests, starting with a simple "defend my home from Ogres" and branching out depending on the outcome.
If multiple players go to that NPC and take the quest at the same time, it's like a public quest in WAR that you are doing the same thing but not together, but it doesn't reset after the quest like in WAR instead you go onto the next step (which again is a branching quest tree determined by the outcome.)
If no one continues the branch, if the party/player/raid whatever stops mid-chain the encounter will just sit there for a while, and after x amount of time will load up a different set of quest branches that will make the Ogre's you drove back start charging forward again etc.
But it is impossible for them to create infinite loops and impossible to create an un-ending number of quest branches, so they'll have to repeat at some point.
So in practice it sounds like they are just linking public quests, making them scale to the number of players participating (even down to a single player) and setting win/lose conditions to continue the branching.
But there are limits, and it will reset and be more like a pendulum moving between branches not an infinite spiral.
Thoughts? Anyone else?
I really hope they pull this off, looking forward to GW2.
"If all you can say is... "It's awful, it's not innovative, it's ugly, it's blah.." Then you're an unimaginative and unpolished excuse for human life" -eburn
It sure does sound great, but I'm extremely skeptical on how this will actually translate to being a "Dynamic" event. It sounds remarkably similar to what WAR created, but without personal questing. They plan on scaling missions and creating chain events... but on what scale will we be looking at these things?
What will the loop be? How often will a dragon be spawning? How often will someone be taking that orb from the ocean? Will the areas be instanced? Will one instance have a dragon in the area and another have ogres?
I'm interested to see how it works, I don't think this is so much progressive as it is just different. I'll be glad to try it though.
Just what I was thinking. WH Online sounded great too, but didn't turn out great by any means.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Yes this is what I thought, though I explained it ... differently... I guess.
If they completely remove personal questing and make everything scalable from solo to group (public) quests I just worry it'll be like WAR but all you do is hop from PQ to PQ, and depending on if you "win" or "lose" a PQ it'll either send you to the next one or to a different one.
And yeah with the exploration thing how often will those repeat?
I'll just have to see it in practice and play around with it... but I love the very idea of Public Quests and the more the better, completely eliminating personal (solo) quests and going 100% PQ? It's ballsy but if they do chain them and loop them in a way that feels organic and interesting I won't mind a little repetition, especially with the scaling mechanics and varying player participating altering the content each loop...
How many games have you posted that about?
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
At least one thing that we know about ANet is that they've grown very careful about what the devs and CR say in interviews and on fansite forums. Very rarely will they say anything as specific as what we're seeing in the interviews and on the official site today without trusting in themselves that they'll accomplish whatever the topic is. This leads me to believe that they're very confident in this system they're describing and I'll trust that they'll make it work.
How would this work with a regular level progression system? Perhaps with the way the old guild wars progression would work where you only have a low level cap and most of the content is still accessible and somewhat challenging at level cap. But if everything is PQ related how do they balance for levels at all? Would a level 15 or 20 in the area increase difficulty? Or would the Event only scale by the amount of players in the area and level wouldn't matter?
I hope they show this in action... maybe at E3?
Well, I don't know if it is how they will do it, but one way of doing it is implementing quest chains, where you have for example a main line from quest A to K: if the players are doing nothing, then the game will slowly progress towards point K, where it'll settle in sort of an end state. If players start fighting back along that main line, they could be able to push the main line back to the environment state of chain point A. Every stop along that quest main line will have the area in a different setup, at one end the village where you'd usually resupply has been raided and has to be conquered back, at the other end you have slain the tribe of orcs and chased them out of their village.
You could have several of such quest chains in an area, with some maybe only getting unlocked when the area is in a certain state (orc village is slain, suddenly bandits are making the area where orcs wandered around unsafe, while in the former orc village, orcs are pouring in again, but with very strong brethren)
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
What they're describing doesn't sound like that. They've already said they're won't be "win or lose" in the example of the dredge marching they said they a different chain of events will trigger depending if you attack them early, in the middle, late, or not at all etc. It's reacting to what your doing not just if you win or lose. What they're describing isn't just multiple PQ linked to together. What you do and when you do things also affect things.
I think this will be a lot more dynamic than War's PQ system. And a lot less predictable.